Hmm, tax on parking, tax on dying, tax on carrier bags...... tax on flying, tax on holidays to europe, tax on holidays in Britain (hotel tax).
And of course tax on tax - removing excemptions on capital gains tax items on transfer at death - they will be taxed at CGT level then again at IHT level.
Oh yeah - and taper relief will be abolished too. What a flipping joke!!.
Gordon Kennedy - dont'cha just lurve this Guy. This Ginger Cheeky Chappy certainly gets my vote, anytime, and no mistake. I thought he was simply fab on the Telly: "Woops, Whose Knocking up my Wife, next Door." The Ladies just lap this sort of thing up. And, I hear he likes a good swill with the Lads, down the Local. There you go, a vote winner from all sides; this Guy simply can't fail. Taxation - I'm prepared to do my bit, for Queen & Country. Take as much as you need, Sir.
Ian Kennedy - dont'cha just hate this Guy. Not another one of these imbecilic red-faced Jocks, who couldn't organise the proverbial. What gives them the right to come down to England, and pass their foul Laws. As a small-minded business man, I work bloody hard; am taxed upto the eyeballs; and still these cretins are wanting a big slice of my Rump. Awake - Albion, it's time to stop the Rot.
Go back to your constituency, and prepare for eternal opposition.
I know if I was putting together an articulate reply to that comment, the first thing I would have pointed out was his error.
If he made one that is.
I personally don't think it deserved an articulated reply.
Put it this way - if Charles Kennedy is 'sitting on the sidelines', and he's 'utterly clueless', then I'm a Jehovah's Witness. :rolleyes:
Secondly, I don't like the 'greenhouse' comment. I believe it is Labour who're in the greenhouse, and throwing many a stone too - see 'education, or lack of, since 1997'.
I personally don't think it deserved an articulated reply.
Put it this way - if Charles Kennedy is 'sitting on the sidelines', and he's 'utterly clueless', then I'm a Jehovah's Witness. :rolleyes:
Secondly, I don't like the 'greenhouse' comment. I believe it is Labour who're in the greenhouse, and throwing many a stone too - see 'education, or lack of, since 1997'.
I never had you down as being a Jehovahs Witness.
Charles Kennedy IS sitting in the sidelines, along with Michael Howard. Out all the big issues, he has never yet made any clear agenda. You ask the average person in the street what Charles Kennedy stands for, and they proberly have no idea that he is trying to stand up for the working class (or so he thinks anyway).
Thats the reason why Labour are going to win by a larger majority than the previous two elections.
And yes, every comment deserves some articulation and manners in reply. We should call each other "Right honourable...."
The Liberal Democrats are a joke party, sitting on the sidelines with an utterly clueless leader.
Sitting on the sidelines?
The policy of the Tories on pretty much everything is to grumble about it a bit but then abstain when the actual vote comes (ID Cards, Iraq, etc). That isn't opposition! That is sitting on the sidelines!
The policy of Labour is to do whatever the Daily Mail says domestically and what George Bush says internationally.
I think the Lib Dems are the only party with any policies or principles of their own.
The Lib Dems may not get a great deal of press but they are not sitting on the sidelines. They recently introduced proposals to redress the secretive, grubby and over-presidential nature of government. They proposed abolishing the Royal Perogative (as exercised by Prime Ministers) and beefing up the Freedom Of Information act so that people can get really useful information out of it not just 15 year old scandals.
You ask the average person in the street what Charles Kennedy stands for, and they proberly have no idea
That is true, however it isn't his fault. The media simply are not interested in reporting about policies and political ideas. They are only interested in fake personality clashes and people accidentally sending rude e-mails to eachother. As such, the media remains obsessed with the pointless bickering between the two conservative parties (who have almost no actual policy differences) and it is very hard for anybody else to get a word in edgeways. It doesn't help that Kennedy is an amiable and decent man who isn't rude, violent or bigoted. How boring is that? Now if only he would send a few nasty e-mails...
that he is trying to stand up for the working class (or so he thinks anyway).
I don't think that is quite right. The liberal idea is to stand up for what is fair and sensible without thinking about things in outdated terms of "class". What is true is that Labour has largely lost touch with its traditional working class voters and courted Daily Mail readers at their expense. Gordon Brown is the only one who seems to realise that this is a mistake. This means that working class voters are now more likely to consider the Lib Dems.
On the one hand, the Lib Dems will never be what Labour used to be, a party which puts the interests of the working class before all others but at least it is a party which treats working class people's interests equally with others.
Charles Kennedy IS sitting in the sidelines, along with Michael Howard. Out all the big issues, he has never yet made any clear agenda. You ask the average person in the street what Charles Kennedy stands for, and they proberly have no idea that he is trying to stand up for the working class (or so he thinks anyway).
Thats the reason why Labour are going to win by a larger majority than the previous two elections.
And yes, every comment deserves some articulation and manners in reply. We should call each other "Right honourable...."
The Right Honourable Big_Bro_Man, are you concluding that the Lib Dems don't get enough media exposure? In which case, I applaud your stance.
I agree with (the Rt. Hon) etldlrl that the ideas of the Lib Dems aren't geared towards one class, or another. Labour for the working class, the Cons for the middle/upper classes, and the Lib Dems who work for everyone.
I can't do much else but to echo etldlrl's comments.
The Right Honourable Big_Bro_Man, are you concluding that the Lib Dems don't get enough media exposure? In which case, I applaud your stance.
I agree with (the Rt. Hon) etldlrl that the ideas of the Lib Dems aren't geared towards one class, or another. Labour for the working class, the Cons for the middle/upper classes, and the Lib Dems who work for everyone.
I can't do much else but to echo etldlrl's comments.
You appear to be misinformed.
Charles Kennedy has from what I've seen only ever received positive media attention, ever since his day as an SDLP MP. "Chat show Charlie" he is renowned for being - as he is so easy going, and able to chat at a 'human' level on television.
A lot of working class people would say Labour don't represent them anymore, or at least it doesn't feel like it.
The tories don't necessarily only represent the middle classes. After all, many many farmers are definate tory supporters (take a look at any map of constituency - you could easily mistake urban areas for being red and everywhere else in England being blue - the rural parts of Scotland being a split between the SNP and the Liberal Democrats - but this is purely theoretical, for these areas have been liberal theatres ever since the 1900's.
I'm not middle class, but I'm now standing a good chance of voting conservative. I have a job, which will be secure during a recession. I trust Monetarists to run the economy better than any Keynesanist, for when the going gets tough they are just liable to chuck my good money after bad.
The liberal democrats like to put across "they work for everyone" - thats bullcrap. To start off with, they work for themselves.
44 tax rises - well put it this way, your typical tory supporter is not going to like paying them but he/she can afford it. There is nothing to stop working class people being caught up in Lib Dem tax rises. Hotel taxes, so thats £70 on a 7 day trip to Blackpool. How many staunch conservitive middle class types that you keep stereotyping about do you think go there?
Let's not forget the extra tax on the fuel the coach will need to get there, and tax on carrier bags; tax on dogs - but of course this tory stereotype you play upto need not bother about these hikes. Do these people ... in your stereotypes ... have butlers? Well they can get the shopping, and pay the parking tax on parking the car outside the shopping centre. Of course, they will stay in the countryside too wouldn't they - they may be one of the very few people that need a 4x4 drive vehicle to negotiate those unlit country lanes during bad weather etc.? Ever tried to drive a 2WD vehicle through a country lane with 6" thick uncompacted snow? Thats an extra tax on the 4x4 too.
Oh ok - not all working class people continue to go to Blackpool - many make use of cheap flights to Europe etc. But oh yeah I nearly forgot! Charles Kennedy wants a higher airport departure tax! And your flight ticket is going to cost a further bomb too! Higher tax on aviation fuel!
But still he can find it in his big yellow heart to bump up benefits, and stretch their reach to 16+17 year old children too.
So if you work, at whatever level - then the lib dems are not going to work for you; your going to get stung by the Lib Dem tax cuts. Think red tape under Labour is bad? Just wait til you see the Yellow tape thats going to be wrapped up in.
Charles Kennedy has from what I've seen only ever received positive media attention, ever since his day as an SDLP MP. "Chat show Charlie" he is renowned for being - as he is so easy going, and able to chat at a 'human' level on television.
Exactly, the man actually has a personality, and feeling - and he doesn't hide it.
A lot of working class people would say Labour don't represent them anymore, or at least it doesn't feel like it.
The tories don't necessarily only represent the middle classes. After all, many many farmers are definate tory supporters (take a look at any map of constituency - you could easily mistake urban areas for being red and everywhere else in England being blue - the rural parts of Scotland being a split between the SNP and the Liberal Democrats - but this is purely theoretical, for these areas have been liberal theatres ever since the 1900's.
I'd attribute that to something along the lines of them actually making a profit. The Labour (and previous) government seem to enjoy taxing the a*ses off farmers, and allow supermarkets to say 'look at our cheap stuff', whilst forgetting the pittance farmers get for their produce. :mad:
I'm not middle class, but I'm now standing a good chance of voting conservative. I have a job, which will be secure during a recession. I trust Monetarists to run the economy better than any Keynesanist, for when the going gets tough they are just liable to chuck my good money after bad.
Not everybody can have a secure job - some people have to do the crap jobs to keep us all above water. I think the going is very tough at the moment - perhaps the government are throwing enough money at it as it is, maybe not. All the same, public services are failing, often due to understaffing. To recover from that, you need to throw more money in cleaning up the backlog, before having the right amount of staff for the long-term solution.
That's chucking extra good money, when if the government didn't want to be so tight in the first place, it could have been avoided. See; 'Education, NHS, and CSA... etc.'
The liberal democrats like to put across "they work for everyone" - thats bullcrap. To start off with, they work for themselves.
Now I think you're misinformed. In your opinion, I was talking bullcrap, not the party. Having said that, the Tories work for very few, and Labour work for nobody, so the Lib Dems haven't got much to beat.
44 tax rises - well put it this way, your typical tory supporter is not going to like paying them but he/she can afford it. There is nothing to stop working class people being caught up in Lib Dem tax rises. Hotel taxes, so thats £70 on a 7 day trip to Blackpool. How many staunch conservitive middle class types that you keep stereotyping about do you think go there?
Sorry about the figures here, but if I'm correct, Labour have introduced around 60 new taxes! That's not tax hikes, that's new taxes! I've no idea who'd want to go to Blackpool, I've never been - for all I know, it could appeal to anyone.
Let's not forget the extra tax on the fuel the coach will need to get there, and tax on carrier bags; tax on dogs - but of course this tory stereotype you play upto need not bother about these hikes. Do these people ... in your stereotypes ... have butlers? Well they can get the shopping, and pay the parking tax on parking the car outside the shopping centre. Of course, they will stay in the countryside too wouldn't they - they may be one of the very few people that need a 4x4 drive vehicle to negotiate those unlit country lanes during bad weather etc.? Ever tried to drive a 2WD vehicle through a country lane with 6" thick uncompacted snow? Thats an extra tax on the 4x4 too.
Fuel taxes keep overuse down (this is why the Americans have to drive everywhere, and have trucks - it's cheap).
Carrier bags should be taxed - they're a menace - the polymers they consist of aren't usually recyclable via normal method (even here, where we have an insane recycling policy) - if Ireland can move to a recycled paper bag system, I'm damn sure we can.
Tax on dogs - bit of a privilege to own a pet, isn't it? All the same, for good care of a dog, you need plenty of cash anyway - vets' bills aren't cheap.
The parking tax! Councils charge enough anyway! I'll take your stance of 'me', and say, as my family don't have a car - who cares? Stuggle on the one-an-hour buses like the rest of us.
There should be an extra tax on 4x4s. It's a joke. I agree though, when put to their proper use, drivers shouldn't be punished.
Oh ok - not all working class people continue to go to Blackpool - many make use of cheap flights to Europe etc. But oh yeah I nearly forgot! Charles Kennedy wants a higher airport departure tax! And your flight ticket is going to cost a further bomb too! Higher tax on aviation fuel!
Again, I've never been abroad, costs far too much. Having said that, two adults can fly to Bologna for £63 now with Ryanair. I'd be happy to pay an extra tenner on top.
But still he can find it in his big yellow heart to bump up benefits, and stretch their reach to 16+17 year old children too.
It certain does beat Labour's EMA idea. It's not extra by any means. For a family on benefits, the amount of the EMA just covers what's lost anyway. Oh, and not forgetting that somebody can be 16 before they reach the sixth form. :rolleyes:
So if you work, at whatever level - then the lib dems are not going to work for you; your going to get stung by the Lib Dem tax cuts. Think red tape under Labour is bad? Just wait til you see the Yellow tape thats going to be wrapped up in.
I think I've missed your point. An example. The Lib Dems will combine the CSA and Inland Revenue. This will actually make the whole thing work - because it just isn't at the moment - oh, and less red tape, too.
Oh ok - not all working class people continue to go to Blackpool - many make use of cheap flights to Europe etc. But oh yeah I nearly forgot! Charles Kennedy wants a higher airport departure tax! And your flight ticket is going to cost a further bomb too! Higher tax on aviation fuel!
Actually I think this is rather a good idea. If memory serves, flight is way behind other modes of transport in terms of fuel efficiency, and there are other factors to consider such as pumping out greenhouse gases at 30,000ft where they can do more long-term damage and don't get soaked up by plant life so easily. You'd probably do less harm to the environment driving to Rome than flying there.
Fuel taxes keep overuse down (this is why the Americans have to drive everywhere, and have trucks - it's cheap).
I don't accept that at all. Fuel duties have soared under this and previous Governments and it has had no noticeable impact on car use. On the contrary, car use has increased dramatically, and our roads can barely cope.
On the particular stereotype, Americans drive further and for longer because the distances involved are far greater. People have relatives scattered all across the USA, and it can be over 100 miles to the nearest sizeable city in some places. In this country, it's uncommon to have relatives more than 100 miles away that you regularly visit.
Tax on dogs - bit of a privilege to own a pet, isn't it? All the same, for good care of a dog, you need plenty of cash anyway - vets' bills aren't cheap.
All the more reason not to take more money from pet "owners" just for the sake of it. This does seem like a rather frivolous tax to me, and just an excuse to screw more money out of people.
The parking tax! Councils charge enough anyway! I'll take your stance of 'me', and say, as my family don't have a car - who cares? Stuggle on the one-an-hour buses like the rest of us.
Again, you make the case against parking tax by pointing out that the councils already control the tariffs. There can be no justification whatsoever for some kind of central levy. Yet another excuse for central Government to screw more money out of people.
There should be an extra tax on 4x4s. It's a joke.
Explain?
I agree though, when put to their proper use, drivers shouldn't be punished.
Actually I think this is rather a good idea. If memory serves, flight is way behind other modes of transport in terms of fuel efficiency, and there are other factors to consider such as pumping out greenhouse gases at 30,000ft where they can do more long-term damage and don't get soaked up by plant life so easily. You'd probably do less harm to the environment driving to Rome than flying there.
That's right, as far as I know. It appears to be that thanks to planes, various areas are missing out on the yearly monsoon - which can lead to mass drought.
The theory states (and it's a sound one, IMO), that due to the contrails left by aircraft, less sunlight gets through to the ground. When less sunlight gets through to the ground, that means less photons hit the ground - and when less photons hit the ground, less water on the ground evaporates. Less water evaporates, less rain.
If that's bad, the other changes in weather patterns are disasterous.
I don't accept that at all. Fuel duties have soared under this and previous Governments and it has had no noticeable impact on car use. On the contrary, car use has increased dramatically, and our roads can barely cope.
I don't agree with the way prices have soared, but as you say - the roads are still packed. People obviously see 80p a litre as worth it.
I don't think duties need to be so high - if the government had a 20p levy on each litre, that'd still only make it 45p a litre.
On the particular stereotype, Americans drive further and for longer because the distances involved are far greater. People have relatives scattered all across the USA, and it can be over 100 miles to the nearest sizeable city in some places. In this country, it's uncommon to have relatives more than 100 miles away that you regularly visit.
That's true, but it doesn't mean that something doesn't need to be done about it. I'm all for spending time together, but no wonder the US has stupidly high emissions levels.
All the more reason not to take more money from pet "owners" just for the sake of it. This does seem like a rather frivolous tax to me, and just an excuse to screw more money out of people.
I'm not in support of it by any means, but dog "owners" shouldn't be all that skint in the first place - that is, if they want to look after the pets.
Again, you make the case against parking tax by pointing out that the councils already control the tariffs. There can be no justification whatsoever for some kind of central levy. Yet another excuse for central Government to screw more money out of people.
The amount councils charge is beyond. But then again, most car parks are in the centre of town. And in the centre of town (any town), traffic is usually horrendous. Perhaps with a central levy, we would see an improvement in public transport? I don't trust anything to do with road communications will ever improve under this government - since 1997, things have got much worse!
Explain?
4x4s are huge. They're rarely used by people that need them. Oh, and half of the big things called 4x4s wouldn't actually manage on anything more than 2 inches of grass.
I'm all for allowing farmers to use them - but they shouldn't be in city centres.
In which case, a blanket tax isn't the answer.
If anything, the Lib Dems seem totally against blanket taxing - the council tax to local income tax issue, for one thing. Hopefully they wouldn't blanked tax - I frankly can't see them punishing 'real' users of 4x4s.
Comments
Rudi :cool: ™
Blackadder - Shuttup you idiot
Blackadder - hmm, i have a cunning plan
http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/TheLibDemTaxSting.pdf
Biased article - yes.... lies - not.
Hmm, tax on parking, tax on dying, tax on carrier bags...... tax on flying, tax on holidays to europe, tax on holidays in Britain (hotel tax).
And of course tax on tax - removing excemptions on capital gains tax items on transfer at death - they will be taxed at CGT level then again at IHT level.
Oh yeah - and taper relief will be abolished too. What a flipping joke!!.
The perfect party for Britain's average Mr Liberal growing plants in his greenhouse with no idea of what's going in the real world.
ahem! i dont own a greenhouse....
Well, I'm not paying.
Then you can't die, sorry.
Ian Kennedy - dont'cha just hate this Guy. Not another one of these imbecilic red-faced Jocks, who couldn't organise the proverbial. What gives them the right to come down to England, and pass their foul Laws. As a small-minded business man, I work bloody hard; am taxed upto the eyeballs; and still these cretins are wanting a big slice of my Rump. Awake - Albion, it's time to stop the Rot.
Go back to your constituency, and prepare for eternal opposition.
So you don't deny everything the gentleman said?
I know if I was putting together an articulate reply to that comment, the first thing I would have pointed out was his error.
If he made one that is.
Put it this way - if Charles Kennedy is 'sitting on the sidelines', and he's 'utterly clueless', then I'm a Jehovah's Witness. :rolleyes:
Secondly, I don't like the 'greenhouse' comment. I believe it is Labour who're in the greenhouse, and throwing many a stone too - see 'education, or lack of, since 1997'.
I never had you down as being a Jehovahs Witness.
Charles Kennedy IS sitting in the sidelines, along with Michael Howard. Out all the big issues, he has never yet made any clear agenda. You ask the average person in the street what Charles Kennedy stands for, and they proberly have no idea that he is trying to stand up for the working class (or so he thinks anyway).
Thats the reason why Labour are going to win by a larger majority than the previous two elections.
And yes, every comment deserves some articulation and manners in reply. We should call each other "Right honourable...."
Sitting on the sidelines?
The policy of the Tories on pretty much everything is to grumble about it a bit but then abstain when the actual vote comes (ID Cards, Iraq, etc). That isn't opposition! That is sitting on the sidelines!
The policy of Labour is to do whatever the Daily Mail says domestically and what George Bush says internationally.
I think the Lib Dems are the only party with any policies or principles of their own.
The Lib Dems may not get a great deal of press but they are not sitting on the sidelines. They recently introduced proposals to redress the secretive, grubby and over-presidential nature of government. They proposed abolishing the Royal Perogative (as exercised by Prime Ministers) and beefing up the Freedom Of Information act so that people can get really useful information out of it not just 15 year old scandals.
That is true, however it isn't his fault. The media simply are not interested in reporting about policies and political ideas. They are only interested in fake personality clashes and people accidentally sending rude e-mails to eachother. As such, the media remains obsessed with the pointless bickering between the two conservative parties (who have almost no actual policy differences) and it is very hard for anybody else to get a word in edgeways. It doesn't help that Kennedy is an amiable and decent man who isn't rude, violent or bigoted. How boring is that? Now if only he would send a few nasty e-mails...
I don't think that is quite right. The liberal idea is to stand up for what is fair and sensible without thinking about things in outdated terms of "class". What is true is that Labour has largely lost touch with its traditional working class voters and courted Daily Mail readers at their expense. Gordon Brown is the only one who seems to realise that this is a mistake. This means that working class voters are now more likely to consider the Lib Dems.
On the one hand, the Lib Dems will never be what Labour used to be, a party which puts the interests of the working class before all others but at least it is a party which treats working class people's interests equally with others.
The Right Honourable Big_Bro_Man, are you concluding that the Lib Dems don't get enough media exposure? In which case, I applaud your stance.
I agree with (the Rt. Hon) etldlrl that the ideas of the Lib Dems aren't geared towards one class, or another. Labour for the working class, the Cons for the middle/upper classes, and the Lib Dems who work for everyone.
I can't do much else but to echo etldlrl's comments.
Well that rules Tony out then!
You appear to be misinformed.
Charles Kennedy has from what I've seen only ever received positive media attention, ever since his day as an SDLP MP. "Chat show Charlie" he is renowned for being - as he is so easy going, and able to chat at a 'human' level on television.
A lot of working class people would say Labour don't represent them anymore, or at least it doesn't feel like it.
The tories don't necessarily only represent the middle classes. After all, many many farmers are definate tory supporters (take a look at any map of constituency - you could easily mistake urban areas for being red and everywhere else in England being blue - the rural parts of Scotland being a split between the SNP and the Liberal Democrats - but this is purely theoretical, for these areas have been liberal theatres ever since the 1900's.
I'm not middle class, but I'm now standing a good chance of voting conservative. I have a job, which will be secure during a recession. I trust Monetarists to run the economy better than any Keynesanist, for when the going gets tough they are just liable to chuck my good money after bad.
The liberal democrats like to put across "they work for everyone" - thats bullcrap. To start off with, they work for themselves.
44 tax rises - well put it this way, your typical tory supporter is not going to like paying them but he/she can afford it. There is nothing to stop working class people being caught up in Lib Dem tax rises. Hotel taxes, so thats £70 on a 7 day trip to Blackpool. How many staunch conservitive middle class types that you keep stereotyping about do you think go there?
Let's not forget the extra tax on the fuel the coach will need to get there, and tax on carrier bags; tax on dogs - but of course this tory stereotype you play upto need not bother about these hikes. Do these people ... in your stereotypes ... have butlers? Well they can get the shopping, and pay the parking tax on parking the car outside the shopping centre. Of course, they will stay in the countryside too wouldn't they - they may be one of the very few people that need a 4x4 drive vehicle to negotiate those unlit country lanes during bad weather etc.? Ever tried to drive a 2WD vehicle through a country lane with 6" thick uncompacted snow? Thats an extra tax on the 4x4 too.
Oh ok - not all working class people continue to go to Blackpool - many make use of cheap flights to Europe etc. But oh yeah I nearly forgot! Charles Kennedy wants a higher airport departure tax! And your flight ticket is going to cost a further bomb too! Higher tax on aviation fuel!
But still he can find it in his big yellow heart to bump up benefits, and stretch their reach to 16+17 year old children too.
So if you work, at whatever level - then the lib dems are not going to work for you; your going to get stung by the Lib Dem tax cuts. Think red tape under Labour is bad? Just wait til you see the Yellow tape thats going to be wrapped up in.
Time to get the big blue scissors out I think.
That's chucking extra good money, when if the government didn't want to be so tight in the first place, it could have been avoided. See; 'Education, NHS, and CSA... etc.'
Actually I think this is rather a good idea. If memory serves, flight is way behind other modes of transport in terms of fuel efficiency, and there are other factors to consider such as pumping out greenhouse gases at 30,000ft where they can do more long-term damage and don't get soaked up by plant life so easily. You'd probably do less harm to the environment driving to Rome than flying there.
I don't accept that at all. Fuel duties have soared under this and previous Governments and it has had no noticeable impact on car use. On the contrary, car use has increased dramatically, and our roads can barely cope.
On the particular stereotype, Americans drive further and for longer because the distances involved are far greater. People have relatives scattered all across the USA, and it can be over 100 miles to the nearest sizeable city in some places. In this country, it's uncommon to have relatives more than 100 miles away that you regularly visit.
All the more reason not to take more money from pet "owners" just for the sake of it. This does seem like a rather frivolous tax to me, and just an excuse to screw more money out of people.
Again, you make the case against parking tax by pointing out that the councils already control the tariffs. There can be no justification whatsoever for some kind of central levy. Yet another excuse for central Government to screw more money out of people.
Explain?
In which case, a blanket tax isn't the answer.
Global dimming - an interesting read.
The theory states (and it's a sound one, IMO), that due to the contrails left by aircraft, less sunlight gets through to the ground. When less sunlight gets through to the ground, that means less photons hit the ground - and when less photons hit the ground, less water on the ground evaporates. Less water evaporates, less rain.
If that's bad, the other changes in weather patterns are disasterous.
I don't think duties need to be so high - if the government had a 20p levy on each litre, that'd still only make it 45p a litre. That's true, but it doesn't mean that something doesn't need to be done about it. I'm all for spending time together, but no wonder the US has stupidly high emissions levels. I'm not in support of it by any means, but dog "owners" shouldn't be all that skint in the first place - that is, if they want to look after the pets. The amount councils charge is beyond. But then again, most car parks are in the centre of town. And in the centre of town (any town), traffic is usually horrendous. Perhaps with a central levy, we would see an improvement in public transport? I don't trust anything to do with road communications will ever improve under this government - since 1997, things have got much worse! 4x4s are huge. They're rarely used by people that need them. Oh, and half of the big things called 4x4s wouldn't actually manage on anything more than 2 inches of grass.
I'm all for allowing farmers to use them - but they shouldn't be in city centres. If anything, the Lib Dems seem totally against blanket taxing - the council tax to local income tax issue, for one thing. Hopefully they wouldn't blanked tax - I frankly can't see them punishing 'real' users of 4x4s.